City Expenditures to MARK ALCOCK, FORENSIC EXAMINER, Total $216,286.29 (May 2013-February 2014)

ABSTRACT: Despite Carmel P.D. detective Rachelle Lightfoot stating that the McInchak investigation is “a top priority for our department,” (Still no charges against McInchak, By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, July 12, 2013), and Monterey County Chief Assistant District Attorney Terry Spitz stating an examination “can take days, if not longer,” thirteen months have elapsed since the date of the First Contract between the City and Mark Alcock, Forensic Examiner, on February 25, 2013, and the present date of March 31, 2014 without any announcement about the current status of this “ongoing” investigation. Expenditures to Mark Alcock between May 2013 and February 2013 from the City’s Check Registers total $216,286.29.  Note: In the aforementioned The Carmel Pine Cone news article, City Administrator Jason Stilwell stated “Mr. Alcock’s contract was approved in accordance with the city’s municipal code, and his invoices have been paid to date,” “As you are aware, Mr. Alcock’s services are in connection with an ongoing investigation.” It was later revealed that there was a Second Contract, dated May 5, 2013 and a Third Contract, dated June 19, 2013.

TOTAL CITY EXPENDITURES TO MARK ALCOCK, FORENSIC EXAMINER (May 2013-February 2014): $216,286.29.

127917 2/27/2014 MARK ALCOCK $8,400.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT SERVICES
Vendor Total---->$8,400.00

127921 2/27/2014 MARK ALCOCK $4,000.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-FORESNIC EXAM
127921 2/27/2014 MARK ALCOCK $9,000.00 01 69053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-FORESNIC EXAM
127921 2/27/2014 MARK ALCOCK $5,000.00 01 69053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-FORESNIC EXAM
Vendor Total -> $18,000.00

127466 12/6/2013 MARK ALCOCK $9,200.00 01 67053 CONTRACT SERVICES-EXAMINER
Vendor Total ----->$9,200.00

127460 12/6/2013 MARK ALCOCK $12,474.75 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT SERVICES
Vendor Total----->$12,474.75

127372 11/14/2013 MARK ALCOCK $22,000.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-FORENSIC
Vendor Total --->$22,000.00

127289 11/7/2013 MARK ALCOCK $21,101.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-EXAMINER
Vendor Total--->$ 21,101.00

127035 9/ 18/2013 MARK ALCOCK FORENSIC EXAMINER $18,198.00 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES- EXAMINER
127035 9/18/2013 MARK ALCOCK $23,480.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES- EXAMINER
126978 9/11/2013 MARK ALCOCK $18, 668.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT SERVICES
Vendor Total----->$60,346.00

126800 8/2/2013 MARK ALCOCK $13,180.54 01 67053 CONTRAL SERVICES IT SERCURITY
126800 8/2/2013 MARK ALCOCK $8,600.00 01 67053 CONTRALSERVICES IT EXAMINER
Vendor Total ---->$21,780.54

126625 6/19/2013 MARK ALCOCK $21,710.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-IT SUPPORT
Vendor Total----->$21,710.00

126240 5/8/2013 MARK ALCOCK 10,958.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
126410 6/5/2013 MARK ALCOCK 10,316.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Vendor Total----->$21,274.00

ADDENDUM:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Adopted Budget FY 2013-14 $65,500

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

69053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Adopted Budget FY 201-14 $9,500

POLICE
74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Adopted Budget FY 2013-14 $150,000

Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
Fiscal Year 2013-2014
Adopted Operating Plan & Budget
June 11, 2013

Carmel Convalescent Hospital Property: SOLD to Dylan Investment Properties

ABSTRACT:  The historic Carmel Convalescent Hospital property at 24945 Valley Way, offered at $3,950,000, sold to Dylan Investment Properties for $3.7 million, according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald.  "Originally built as a metabolic clinic this beautiful Mediterranean offers a multitude of possibilities for the imaginative entrepreneur.  Unique to Carmel, the 22,000 square foot terraced two story concrete and wood framed Spanish Eclectic style hospital building, a 4,000 square foot former nurses quarters, and a 2,000 square foot residence with garages are all situated on 3.68 tree-studded acres adjacent to Highway 1.  Once permitted as a medical/health care facility and with abundant water credits available, this property is perfect for a multitude of users; perhaps a medical clinic, a health club, a care facility, or even the retreat for a large family.  This beautifully situated property and dramatic historic structures offer...potential galore in Carmel," according to Tim Allen, TIM ALLEN PROPERTIES information sheet on the property.  

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Carmel Convalescent Hospital property sold for $3.7 million
Renovation: New owners plan senior care, memory facility
By PHILLIP MOLNAR Herald Staff Writer, 03/27/2014

HIGHLIGHT EXCERPTS:
A historic Monterey Peninsula hospital once pegged for a controversial condominium project may now become an assisted living facility.
The former Carmel Convalescent Hospital was sold Tuesday to Los Angeles-based Dylan Investment Properties for $3.7 million, according to county real estate records.
The limited liability company has been incorporated in Delaware since 1999. Its last major purchase was St. George Medical Center in suburban Sacramento in May 2013, said the Sacramento Business Journal.

Ten Noteworthy 1 April 2014 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Ten Noteworthy 1 April 2014 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session, Announcements from City Administrator, Receive Monthly Reports, Consideration of Resolution Accepting a Grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy in the Amount of $150,000 for Construction of the Carmel Beach Restroom, Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Adopt an Amendment to an Existing Contract (ASD-PCS-PCGMB-003-20 13-14) with Public Consulting Group for the Continuation of Technical Help Desk and Information Technology (IT) System Support in an Amount Not to Exceed $15,000.00, Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Tombleson, Inc., the Lowest Responsible Bidder for the Carmel Beach Restrooms Project for a Not to Exceed Amount of $619,654; Approving a Not to Exceed Amount of $92,948 for Project Contingency; and Approve a Budget Adjustment Request, Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2014-23, and Adopting a Resolution Revising the Salary Range for the City Clerk Classification, Consideration of Urgency Ordinance No. 2014-03 of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Adopting a Moratorium on Approval of Use Permit for New Wine Tasting Room Establishments for a Period of 45 days, Discussion of Parking Management Plan and Provide Direction and Consideration of Approval of the Annual Hospitality Improvement District (HID) Report and Annual Council Review of the Assessment, are presented. Supporting materials are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

4:30 p.m., Open Session

City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Live & ArchivedVideo Streaming

II. Roll Call

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Summary Report from Monday's Workshop
2. Agenda Forecast
3. Government Finance Officers Association Budget Award
4. Acting City Clerk
5. Election Update
6. Introduction of New Employees: Mike Bruno, Police Officer
7. PG & E Update

VII. Consent Calendar

These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

e. Receive Monthly Reports.

Receive Monthly Reports 04-01-14 

f. Consideration of Resolution Accepting a Grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy in the Amount of $150,000 for Construction of the Carmel Beach Restroom.

Resolution Accepting a Grant From the California State Coastal Conservancy in the Amount of $150,000 for Co...

g. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Adopt an Amendment to an Existing Contract (ASD-PCS-PCGMB-003-20 13-14) with Public Consulting Group for the Continuation of Technical Help Desk and Information Technology (IT) System Support in an Amount Not to Exceed $15,000.00.

Amendment to an Existing Contract (ASD-PCS-PCGMB-003-20 13-14) With Public Consulting Group 04-01-14

h. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Tombleson, Inc., the Lowest Responsible Bidder for the Carmel Beach Restrooms Project for a Not to Exceed Amount of $619,654; Approving a Not to Exceed Amount of $92,948 for Project Contingency; and Approve a Budget Adjustment Request.

Construction Contract to Tombleson, Inc., The Lowest Responsible Bidder for the Carmel Beach Restrooms Proj...

j. Consideration of a Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2014-23, and Adopting a Resolution Revising the Salary Range for the City Clerk Classification.

Resolution Revising the Salary Range for the City Clerk Classification 04-01-14.pdf

VIII. Orders of Council

A.Consideration of Urgency Ordinance No. 2014-03 of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Adopting a Moratorium on Approval of Use Permit for New Wine Tasting Room Establishments for a Period of 45 days.

Urgency Ordinance No. 2014-03 of the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea Adopting a Moratorium on...

E. Discussion of Parking Management Plan and Provide Direction.

Parking Management Plan and Provide Direction 04-01-14.pdf

F. Consideration of Approval of the Annual Hospitality Improvement District (HID) Report and Annual Council Review of the Assessment.

Approval of the Annual Hospitality Improvement District (HID) 04-01-14

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL: Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop, March 31, 2014

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL

Tour, Closed Session and

Public Workshop

March 31, 2014 – 4:00 p.m.,

with workshop to follow at 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers

East side of Monte Verde Street between

Ocean and Seventh Avenues

ABSTRACT: On Monday, March 31, 2014, the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council is scheduled to conduct a Tour and Closed Session beginning at 4:00 P.M. and a Public Workshop at 5:30 P.M. Subject: Trash and Recycling Services. The Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop Agenda document is embedded.

Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop 03-31-14

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop
Monday, March 31, 2014

MINUTES, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, March 18, 2014

City Council Minutes Special Meeting March 18, 2014 04-01-14.pdf

MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 18, 2014

MINUTES, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING, March 4, 2014

City Council Minutes March 4, 2014 04-01-14

MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 4, 2014

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, Alleges Measure O ‘Authors’ Ballot Argument is False and/or Misleading’

ABSTRACT: The VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, dated March 22, 2014, by Petitioner, RICHARDS J. HEUER, III, an individual, alleges that the “Authors’ Ballot Argument is False and/or Misleading.” “Authors’ Ballot Argument is replete with false and/or misleading statements, all of which should be stricken from the Ballot Argument…More specifically, the following statements violate the Elections Code and should be stricken:”

“Vote YES on Measure O for lower rates and local ownership.”
“YES means keeping the investments on the Peninsula and owning, not renting, the assets of our water system.”
“Local public ownership means lower rates for water.”
“By eliminating profit, and qualifying for lower cost municipal bonds, studies show that public ownership delivers water 25% cheaper.”
“Measure O would bring additional jobs to the Peninsula.”
“Cal-Am, a private New Jersey company takes more than half of its revenues out of our community.”
“Over 20% of the money you pay goes to profit.”
“YES means an immediate savings as public agencies operate without profit.”
“The savings will boost our local economy.”
“Cal-Am admits its rates will TRIPLE over six years with no accountability to you.”
“Under Measure O, rates would be set locally.”
“Investor-owned utilities (IOU’s) like Cal-Am are beholden to their remote shareholders, not to local ratepayers.”
“That’s why Cal-Am was able to waste over $35 million in failed efforts to find new water and pass those increases off to you.”
“Under the current system, we take all the risk while distant shareholders reap all the reward.”
“Public ownership assures long term supply reliability and controlled costs.”
“In fact, the only success to date in developing new water sources has come from the local Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.”
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays as follows:
1. For issuance of alternative and peremptory writs of mandate directed to Respondent Valenzuela to forbid the printing as written of the Ballot Argument on the ballot for the June 3, 2014 primary election because it contains false and/or misleading statements, as alleged in this Petition, and to prohibit Mr. Valenzuela from printing any alternative ballot argument in favor of Measure O because the deadline for submitting ballot arguments has passed.
2. For costs;
3. For statutory attorneys’ fees, if applicable; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
The VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE document, except Exhibit A: Argument in Favor of Measure O (“Ballot Argument”), is embedded.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (Measure o) 3-22-14

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
MONTEREY COURTHOUSE
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
[CAL. ELEC. CODE §§ 9380, 13314]
ELECTION MATTER IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:

Cal Am-backed suit challenges Measure O ballot argument

Argument 'stretching the truth,' plaintiff says
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 03/26/2014 

HIGHLIGHT EXCERPTS:

A committee sponsored by California American Water is backing a lawsuit challenging the Public Water Now ballot argument in support of the June initiative aimed at forcing a public acquisition of the Monterey Peninsula water system.
The lawsuit, naming Peninsula businessman and anti-tax activist Rick Heuer as plaintiff, alleges the argument in favor of Measure O is "replete with false and/or misleading statements" and seeks to bar Monterey County Registrar of Voters Claudio Valenzuela from printing the argument unless 16 sentences are stricken.
Both sides submitted rebuttal statements and the water management district provided an impartial analysis of the proposed initiative by the Monday deadline, which was also the deadline for filing campaign finance reports with the county, though neither side apparently did so.

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES March 27, 2014

MPRWA Agenda Packet 03-27-14

AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
March 27, 2014

DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) March 27, 2014

DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
March 27, 2014

Community Open House: Gas Explosion @ Guadalupe Av. & Third St. Residence and Resuming Work Replacing Gas Mains with PG&E Vice President Kevin Knapp

WHO: Kevin Knapp, PG&E Vice President, Gas Distribution, and other PG&E officials

WHAT: Community Open House

PG&E Vice President Kevin Knapp and other officials from the utility company will talk about the accident at residence at the S.W. corner of Guadalupe Av. & Third St. and their plans for resuming work replacing gas mains in Carmel

WHEN: Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 4:00 P.M. – 7:00 P.M.

WHERE: City Hall
E/s Monte Verde St. between Ocean Av. & 7th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

NOTE: Exponent, Engineering and Scientific Consulting, is conducting an investigation for PG&E; the final, completed report is expected in two or three weeks. California Public Utilities Commission is also undertaking its own examination of the explosion.

ADDENDUM:

Posted on August 10, 2012
PG&E’s Gas Distribution Operations: Faster Response, Improved Leak Surveys and Repairs
By Matt Nauman

PG&E's Natural Gas System

 RELATED NEWS ARTICLE: 

PG&E officials try to appease uneasy council
- Gas explosion community meeting set for March 26
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, March 21, 2014

SUNSHINE WEEK 2014: A Week Dedicated to Government Transparency and Accountability

Sunshine Week 

"Open government is good government"

Sunshine Week is March 16-22, 2014. This celebration coincides with the birthday of President James Madison, who wrote that “a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

“Sunshine Week is a national initiative to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include news media, civic groups, libraries, nonprofits, schools and others interested in the public’s right to know.”

Former ASNE FOI co-chairs Andrew Alexander and Tim Franklin discuss Sunshine Week 2013.

“Launched in 2005, Sunshine Week has grown into an enduring annual initiative to promote open government and push back against excessive official secrecy.”

“Citizens from across the country are now gearing up for this year’s Sunshine Week – March 16-22 – to once again spark a nationwide discussion about the critical importance of access to public information.”

“Sunshine Week was created by the American Society of News Editors and is now coordinated in partnership with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, but freedom of information isn’t just a press issue. It is a cornerstone of democracy, enlightening and empowering people to play an active role in their government at all levels. It helps keep public officials honest, makes government more efficient and provides a check against abuse of power.”

ADDENDUM:

Sunshine Week for open government planned March 16-22; ASNE and Reporters Committee partner again as co-sponsors Press Release | February 18, 2014

Idea Bank

Sunshine Week is brought to you by

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation / Bloomberg / The Gridiron Club and Foundation

American Society of News Editors / Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Sunshine Week Website Audit

Sunshine Week on facebook

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE THE SPECIAL REQUEST 1 SURCHARGE

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE THE SPECIAL REQUEST 1 SURCHARGE document is embedded. CONCLUSION Given the delay in the proceeding and the extended period for recovery of preconstruction costs, the Settling Parties’ request to reduce Surcharge 1 from 15% to 4.5% of customer bills is justified. California American Water will still be able to recover costs in a timely manner, but customers will benefit in the meantime from a reduced surcharge on their bills. The Settling Parties urge the Commission to authorize the reduction of Surcharge 1 as soon as possible in order to provide the greatest benefit to its customers.

Joint Motion to Reduce the Special Request 1 Surcharge

Filing Date 03-14-14
JOINT MOTION TO REDUCE THE SPECIAL REQUEST 1 SURCHARGE

Attachment 1 Joint Motion to Reduce the Special Request 1 Surcharge

Filing Date 03-14-14
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION 

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

For MAYOR
Vote for ONE

JASON BURNETT
Mayor / Businessperson

VINCENZO D’AMICO (Write-In Candidate)

Artist


For MEMBER of the CITY COUNCIL
Vote for no more than TWO

LUCAS AUSTIN
Businessman

CARRIE THEIS
Businessswoman / Councilmember

STEVE G. DALLAS
Business Owner / Commissioner

VOTE BEFORE OR ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014

Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Program

ABSTRACT: “FOR THE first time in the city’s history, the Government Finance Officers Association has awarded Carmel-by-the-Sea the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award,” City Administrator Jason Stilwell announced this week, according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone (City gets award for budget, The Carmel Pine Cone, March 14, 2014, 29A).  While the award represents “the highest form of recognition in governmental Budgeting,” fifty agencies in California were Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Winners in Budget Year Beginning Fiscal Year 1/1/2012-12/1/2012, the Most Recent Results posted online. For budgets including Fiscal Year 2013, over 1,340 entities received the Award.  The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) is a professional association of finance officers in the United States and Canada. GFOA is a nonprofit association serving over 17,800 government finance professionals throughout North America. The GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards Program is the only national awards program in governmental budgeting. Further information about Government Finance Officers Association is presented. In addition, a link to “A Case Study of the City of Colorado Springs A Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserve Requirements” is provided; selected information regarding the City of Colorado Springs is featured and comparisons to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Government Finance Officers Association

MISSION STATEMENT
The purpose of the Government Finance Officers Association is to enhance and promote the professional management of governments for the public benefit by identifying and developing financial policies and best practices and promoting their use through education, training, facilitation of member networking, and leadership.

Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Program

GFOA Award Winners by State/Province
Most Recent Results
Budget Years Beginning Fiscal Year 1/1/2012 12/1/2012

GFOA Budget Reviewers by State/Province During Calendar Year 2013

STATE/ PROVINCE FIRST/ NAM LAST/ NAME TITLE COMPANY CITY REVIEWER START DATE

CA Jason Stilwell City Administrator City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Carmel Jul-02

ADDENDUM:

"Managing reserves, however, can be a challenge. The main question is how much money to maintain in reserve – how much is enough, and when does it become too much? This can be a sensitive question, since money held in reserve is money taken from constituents, and it can be argued that excessive reserves  should be returned to citizens in the form of lower taxes."

Executive Summary

A Case Study of the City of Colorado Springs

A Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserve Requirements

Government Finance Officers Association
May 2013

Budgetary Uncertainty Reserve
Approximately 12.5 percent of general fund revenues as budgetary uncertainty reserve

Emergency Reserve
Approximately 12.5 percent of general fund revenues as an emergency reserve

Combining the components gives us a target of approximately 25 percent of general fund revenues, which is in line with the range of reserves actually maintained by other cities that are comparable to Colorado Springs. It is also greater than the 16 percent the GFOA considers a minimum baseline level.5

5 See the GFOA best practice, Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund, available at www.gfoa.org. According to this best practice document, governments should establish a formal policy of maintaining reserves equal to about 16 percent of revenues or expenditures, and the actual target should be based on an analysis of the salient risks the government faces – which in many cases calls for a reserve level of more than 16 percent.

City of Colorado Springs, CO.
Budgetary Uncertainty Reserve $27 million
$27 million, or approximately 12.5 percent of general fund revenues as budgetary uncertainty reserve

Emergency Reserve $27 million
$27 million, or approximately 12.5 percent of general fund revenues as an emergency reserve

Based on the 2012 budget estimate of approximately $220 million in general fund revenue.

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
FUND BALANCE
Estimated 6/30/2014 Balance $10,259,848
Total All Funds/Net Assets $8,638,275

Based on adopted budget of $18.2 million
Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Proposed Operating Plan & Budget
Note: Approximately 25 percent of general fund revenues, $4.55 million

FUND BALANCE POLICY
The Fund Balance Policy is designed to develop standards for setting reserve levels for various, significant City funds. Adequate fund balance and reserve levels are a necessary component of the City’s overall financial management strategy and a key factor in external agencies’ measurement of the City’s financial strength. The City shall maintain reserves at a prudent level, and shall use reserves appropriately with a focus on contributing to the reserves in good times and drawing on the reserves in times of difficult budget periods to maintain a consistent level of service and quality operations. Use of reserves are to supplement the annual budget.

Guidelines:
1. General Fund and Hostelry Fund reserves shall be maintained at no less than ten percent (10%) of their annual projected revenues.

2. The City shall maintain prudent reserves for identified liabilities
a. A Vehicle Replacement reserve will be maintained sufficient to replace vehicles and heavy equipment at the end of their useful lives, with the target being 10% of the total City fleet replacement value.
b. Technology equipment replacement reserves will be maintained sufficient to repair covered equipment and for replacement at the end of its useful life.

3. The City will maintain a long-term budget stability reserve consisting of any unassigned General Fund balance. When available, the year-end General Fund operating surplus will be dedicated to the long-term budget stability reserve.

4. A general capital reserve fund will be maintained with a targeted balance of 20% of the estimated total five-year capital improvement plan project expenditure. Net proceeds from the sale of City owned property will be dedicated to the general capital reserve. Funds in the general capital reserve will be allocated through the budget process for capital projects.

5. Reserves shall be used only for established purposes.

6. Depleted reserves shall be restored as soon as possible.

7. A minimum level for each of the reserve funds shall be established (see chart below).

8. The City shall maintain reserves required by law, ordinance and/or bond covenants.

Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Proposed Operating Plan & Budget

Carmel-by-the-Sea COMMUNITY CONVERSATION with Mayor Burnett: Question Submitted

In the aftermath of the publication of The Carmel Pine Cone’s news article entitled, City finance specialist guilty of food stamp fraud, has three bankruptcies- Stilwell says reporting is ‘bullying, By MARY SCHLEY, Published March 14, 2014, L.A. Paterson submitted the following Question to Mayor Jason Burnett on the Burnett for Carmel, Carmel-by-the-Sea COMMUNITY CONVERSATION with Mayor Burnett, website.

“On behalf of a small cadre of citizens who care about honesty, ethical conduct and integrity in deeds, not only words, please answer the following question with logic and reason: If Finance Specialist Deanna Allen, with a record of three bankruptcies and fraud, is “the sort of employee that we want,” then why are former Building Official John Hanson and on-leave IT Manager Steve McInchak, with no criminal records and families too, not the sort of employees that Carmel wants?”

For Posted Question & Answer, click on Questions and Answers.

Five Noteworthy 18 March 2014 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Five Noteworthy 18 March 2014 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Items, namely, Receive and file the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea five-year financial forecast. Receive and review the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Capital Improvement Plan and refer it to the Planning Commission to review for General Plan Consistency, Review citywide performance measures to be reported in the FY14-15 operating plan and budget, Receive Update Regarding City's Destination Marketing Plan and Consideration of Resolution(s) Authorizing the City Administrator to Adopt a Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2014 Professional Services Consulting Contract with Burghardt+Dore for Destination Marketing Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $180,000 and a Professional Services Consulting Contract with Richard Tavener for Destination Marketing Community Services and Event Coordination in an Amount Not to Exceed $55,000 and Receive PG & E Update on Incident and Gas Pipeline Safety Project, are presented. The Special Meeting Agenda and supporting materials are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Tuesday, March 18, 2014 -- 4:30pm

Council Chambers

East side of Monte Verde Street between

Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Live & Archived Video Streaming

 City Council Special Meeting Agenda 03-18-14

City Council Special Meeting Agenda - March 18, 2014

IV. Orders of Council

A. Receive and file the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea five-year financial forecast.

Five Year Financial Forecast Fiscal Year 2014-2015.pdf

Five-year Financial Forecast FY2014-2015

B. Receive and review the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Capital Improvement Plan and refer it to the Planning Commission to review for General Plan Consistency.

Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 2014-2019

Five-year Capital Improvement Plan 2014-2019

C. Review citywide performance measures to be reported in the FY14-15 operating plan and budget.

D. Receive Update Regarding City's Destination Marketing Plan and Consideration of Resolution(s) Authorizing the City Administrator to Adopt a Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2014 Professional Services Consulting Contract with Burghardt+Dore for Destination Marketing Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $180,000 and a Professional Services Consulting Contract with Richard Tavener for Destination Marketing Community Services and Event Coordination in an Amount Not to Exceed $55,000.

Update Regarding the City's Destination Marketing Plan 03-04-14.pdf

E. Receive PG & E Update on Incident and Gas Pipeline Safety Project.

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: June 3, 2014 Ballot Measure on Public Ownership of California American Water

ABSTRACT: The MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT June 3, 2014 Ballot Initiative webpage is reproduced with links to Documents Related to Ballot Initiative; the Documents Related to Ballot Initiative document is embedded.

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

5 Harris Court, Building G,   P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085 (USA)
Water Permit & Conservation Office:   (831) 658-5601 Fax: (831) 644-9558
Administrative Offices:   (831) 658-5600 Fax: (831) 644-9560

June 3, 2014 Ballot Initiative

In response to a petition circulated by Public Water Now, the Board of Directors agreed to place a measure on the June 3, 2014, ballot asking voters within the Water Management District boundaries to adopt or reject a policy of pursuing public ownership of the Monterey Peninsula water system.

The ballot measure would add Rule 19.8 to the Water Management District’s Rules and Regulations and require that:

            A    The General Manager, within nine months of the Rule’s effective date, complete a Feasibility Analysis and Acquisition Plan for the acquisition, long-term ownership, and management by the Water Management District of California American Water’s assets; and

            B    If the Plan concludes acquisition is feasible, the District would be required, as soon as practicable, to take all necessary and proper actions consistent with its powers under District Law and Eminent Domain Law to acquire California American’s water system assets.

The proposed rule 19.8 is incorporated into an ordinance titled “Monterey Peninsula Water System Local Ownership and Cost Savings Initiative.”

The decision to place a measure on the ballot was made by the Board of Directors at its meeting of January 29, 2014.  According to California election law, the Board of Directors had two options: (1) adopt Rule 19.8 as proposed in the Public Water Now initiative petition; or (2) adopt a resolution placing the initiative on the ballot.  The Board voted to place the initiative on the June 3, 2014 ballot, so that local voters could make a decision on public ownership of California American’s water system. 

Public Water Now developed the initiative petition, gathered signatures and submitted signed petitions to the Water Management District on January 13, 2014.  The petitions were referred to the Monterey County Elections department for signature verification.  On January 21, 2014, Monterey County Elections determined that a sufficient number of the 8,517 signatures submitted were valid to qualify the petition.

Documents Related to Ballot Initiative

Ordinance Proposed in Ballot Measure -- Monterey Peninsula Water System Local Ownership and Cost Savings Initiative

MPWMD Resolution 2014-02 Calling for an Election

Calendar for submission and review of arguments for or against the ballot measure

Monterey County Elections office verification of signatures on Public Water Now initiative petition

Public Water Now Initiative Petition

MPWMD June 3, 2014 Ballot Initiative Documents

Documents Related to Ballot Initiative

CITY 2013 CALENDAR YEAR CHECK REGISTERS

ABSTRACT: 2013 CALENDAR YEAR information, including number of checks and grand totals, for each month is presented.   SELECTED HIGHLIGHTS SUMMARIES of LEGAL EXPENDITURES and TOURISM PROMOTION are featured. The 2013 CALENDAR YEAR City’s Check Register document is embedded.

2013 CALENDAR YEAR

Number of Checks, Grand Total, Check Register
174 Checks Grand Total -> $676,544.33 Check Register January 2013

163 Checks Grand Total -> $602,014.93 Check Register February 2013

126 Checks Grand Total -> $475,093.89 Check Register March 2013

127 Checks Grand Total -> $592,666.69 Check Register April 2013

169 Checks Grand Total->415,199.93 Check Registers May 2013

258 Checks Grand Total ->$647,788.25 Check Registers June 2013

104 Checks Grand Total->$1,085,636.32 Check Register July 2013

197 Checks Grand Total->$846,313.05 Check Register August 2013

151 Checks Grand Total ->$774,335.65 Check Register September 2013

161 Checks Grand Total->$1,163,554.93 Check Register October 2013

171 Checks Grand Total->$437,773.61 Check Register November 2013

147 Checks Grand Total->$859,961.53 Check Register December 2013

TOTAL 1,948 checks; $8,575,883.11

SELECTED HIGHLIGHT SUMMARIES

LEGAL EXPENDITURES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL (January 2013 – December 2013)
Fifty-Two Checks

AT&T TELCONFERENCE SERVICES: $61.39

BRIAN FINEGAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW: $26,240.00

BROWNSTEIN/HYATT/FARBER/SCHRECK: $ 5,320.00

CITY OF MONTEREY: $ 3,777.00

CITY OF SALINAS: $1,570.00

KENNEDY, ARCHER & HARRAY: $39,966.45

LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE $65,489.20

MILLER STARR REGALIA: $26,731.50

MONTEREY BAY PLANNING SERVICES: $55,374.02

MONTEREY COUNTY CLERK: $3,045.25

PERRY & FREEMAN LAW OFFCE: $ 1,150.00

RCS INVESTIGATIONS & CONSULTING LLC: $ 3,121.88

RICHARD LEE INVESTIGATIONS: $ 4,777.00

SEDWAY CONSULTING INC: $ 5,950.00

STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH: $18,618.50

GRAND TOTAL LEGAL EXPENDITURES: $261,192.19

NOTE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL:
61051 LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Adopted Budget FY 2013-14 $275,000

TOURISM PROMOTION

BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC.
REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING
Fourteen Checks
GRAND TOTAL: $181,067.69

NOTE: MARKETING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING $ 180,000 Adopted Budget FY 2013-14

MTRY COUNTY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU
Twelve Checks
GRAND TOTAL: $461,187.04
TOTAL REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING $ 29,808.75
TOTAL TOURISM IMPRVMT DISTRICT PYBLE $341,996.00
TOTAL MCCVB MEMBERSHIP $92,802.25

NOTE: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Amounts Deducted
NOTE: MCCVB CONTRACT $136,800 Adopted Budget FY 2013-14NOTE: MCCVB CONTRACT $136,800 Adopted Budget FY 2013-14

CARMEL CHAMBER COMMERCE
Eight Checks
GRAND TOTAL: $203,412.27

NOTES: 85301 CARMEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE $40,000 Adopted Budget FY 2013-14
HOSPITALITY IMPRV DIST PAYABLE & ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CARMEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE-ANNUAL PYMT $40,000.00

WONDERSPACE CARMEL
Five Checks
GRAND TOTAL: $45,720.00

NOTE: 64051 CITY ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $35,000 Adopted Budget FY 2013-14

GRAND TOTAL TOURISM PROMOTION: $891,387.00

Check Registers Calendar Year 2013

City of Carmel by-the-Sea

Check Registers

January 2013-December 2013

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES March 13, 2014

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Monterey Peninsula mayors vote to oppose public water initiative
Public Water Now director calls vote 'political'
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 03/14/2014

HIGHLIGHT EXCERPTS:

Late Thursday, the Peninsula water authority board voted unanimously to draft a statement opposing the ballot measure — known as Measure O — backed by the Public Water Now organization. The measure would require the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to conduct a feasibility study and acquisition plan for such a buyout. The district would be required to purchase Cal Am's local system if the study finds it would be both feasible and beneficial to do so.
Ballot arguments for and against the ballot measure were due by 5 p.m. Friday, and a 10-day public review period is set to run through March 24. That's when rebuttal arguments and an impartial analysis will also be due, with a 10-day review period for those through April 3.

MPRWA Agenda Packet 03-13-14

AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

March 13, 2014

   MPRWA Minutes March 13, 2014

FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

March 13, 2014

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE’S MOTION CONCERNING THE PROJECT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE’S MOTION CONCERNING THE PROJECT document is embedded.  CONCLUSION The Joint Parties respectfully request that the Commission disregard PTA’s requests: (1) that the Commission deviate from its review of the Settlement Agreement; and (2) that it now entertain new options which are beyond the scope of the proceeding and unrelated to the application of a Commission-regulated utility.

JOINT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE’S MOTION CONCERNING THE PROJECT

Filing Date 02-21-14
JOINT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE’S MOTION CONCERNING THE PROJECT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT CLOSING BRIEF ON SIZING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT CLOSING BRIEF ON SIZING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT document is embedded.  CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the Settling Parties respectfully request that those arguments submitted in opposition to the Sizing Agreement be disregarded and the Agreement be approved in its entirety.

Joint Closing Brief on Sizing Settlement Agreement

Filing Date 02-14-14
JOINT CLOSING BRIEF ON SIZING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION document is embedded. CONCLUSION Because the MPWSP Settlement and the Sizing Settlement, as proposed, are not reasonable in light of the whole record, are not consistent with law, and are not in the public interest (Rule 12.1(d)), neither settlement can be approved. The project must be configured to avoid impairment of the 1996 Annexation Agreement and injury to MCWD and other users of SVGB groundwater, and to comply with the Agency Act and other applicable laws. The entire project’s potential environmental impacts and those of all reasonable project alternatives must be thoroughly examined through the Commission’s completion, evaluation and certification of its Subsequent EIR, and its exploration of the environmental impacts of the project at an evidentiary hearing.
Absent revisions to the MPWSP and the Settlements that resolve the legal problems posed by the project’s non-compliance with law and its impairment of MCWD’s interests, and absent the Commission’s lawful resolution of the environmental review issues set forth above, MCWD respectfully requests that the Commission deny both the motion for approval of the MPWSP Settlement and the motion for approval of the Sizing Settlement.

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT'S REPLY BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREE...

Filing Date 02-14-14
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION document is embedded. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Surfrider respectfully requests that the Commission reject the Sizing Agreement in its current form.

SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE PROPOSED ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.pdf

Filing Date 02-14-14
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 REPLY BRIEF BY WATER PLUS

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, REPLY BRIEF BY WATER PLUS document is embedded. Conclusion For these reasons, Water Plus urges the Commission to (a) adopt only the requirement for hydrologic testing in the settlement agreement, (b) adopt the sizing agreement modified to take the ongoing drought into account by requiring that the capacity of the proposed desalination plant be sufficient to meet the entire local demand for water, (c) require Cal Am to amend its water-supply proposal to include mitigation for the difference in energy requirements between sub-seafloor and open-ocean intake, and (d) deny the proposal if either of the competing projects shows a reasonable chance to materialize.

REPLY BRIEF BY WATER PLUS.pdf

Filing Date 02-14-14
REPLY BRIEF BY WATER PLUS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT CLOSING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT CLOSING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT document, including Attachment 1, is embedded.  CONCLUSION As discussed above, MCWD’s opening brief includes several arguments that the Commission has already rejected, issues that will be addressed as part of the environmental review process, and flawed claims unsupported by law or fact. The Commission’s settlement process has been open and transparent. The Settlement Agreement is reasonable, consistent with the law, and in the public interest, and should be adopted by the Commission.

Joint Closing Brief in Support of Approval and Implementation of Settlement Agreement

Filing Date 02-14-14
JOINT CLOSING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

MPWSP Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan Attachment 1

Filing Date 02-14-14
Attachment 1
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY JOINDER IN SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY JOINDER IN SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION document is embedded. Importantly, “LandWatch Monterey County hereby joins in Surfrider Foundation’s Reply Brief On The Proposed Settlement Agreement On Plant Size And Level Of Operation to be filed in this matter on February 14, 2014.”

Landwatch Monterey County Joinder in Surfrider Foundation's Reply Brief

Filing Date 02-14-14
LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY JOINDER IN SURFRIDER FOUNDATION’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 THE OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES CLOSING BRIEF

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, THE OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES CLOSING BRIEF document is embedded. CONCLUSION The two Settlement Agreements before the Commission are reasonable and offer the most clear and most widely-supported approach towards solving Monterey’s long-term water crisis to date. Hence, ORA respectfully requests that the Commission adopt both Settlement Agreements and pave the way to solving Monterey’s long-term water problem.

The Office of Ratepayer Advocates Closing Brief

Filing Date 02-14-14
THE OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES CLOSING BRIEF

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S COMPLIANCE FILING RESPONDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S QUESTION CONCERNING DROUGHT DECLARATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S COMPLIANCE FILING RESPONDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S QUESTION CONCERNING DROUGHT DECLARATION document is embedded. Importantly, “Thus, at this time, and based on its current information and understanding, Cal-Am does not believe Governor Brown’s proclamation of a drought State of Emergency, issued on January 17, 2014, directly impacts this proceeding.”
“It should, however, be noted that the proclamation emphasizes the uncertainties and instability of many of the State’s water sources. Importantly, the MPWSP, and in particular its desalination component, is critical to providing greater reliability in such a challenging environment.”

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S COMPLIANCE FILING

Filing Date 02-07-14
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S COMPLIANCE FILING RESPONDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S QUESTION CONCERNING DROUGHT DECLARATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE'S MOTION TO REQUEST CONSIDERATION OF REASONABLE COURSES OF ACTION CONSISTENT WITH LAW BEFORE COMMITTING THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC TO AN UNREASONABLE PROJECT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE'S MOTION TO REQUEST CONSIDERATION OF REASONABLE COURSES OF ACTION CONSISTENT WITH LAW BEFORE COMMITTING THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC TO AN UNREASONABLE PROJECT document is embedded. Importantly, “While evidence is still being assembled to support the experimental engineering involved in implementing slant wells under a protected Marine Sanctuary and the perhaps unnecessary brine disposal and an energy intensive mode of fresh water production in a vulnerable coastal zone in a time of extreme climate change, perhaps the familiar alternative project involving reservoir operation and a new pipeline at the head of the Salinas watershed could be reinvestigated instead of going through all sorts of legal contortions to avoid public consideration of such reasonable projects that have long been on public agency agendas.”

Public Trust Alliance's Motion to Request Consideration of Reasonable Courses

Filing Date 02-06-14
PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE'S MOTION TO REQUEST CONSIDERATION OF REASONABLE COURSES OF ACTION CONSISTENT WITH LAW BEFORE COMMITTING THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC TO AN UNREASONABLE PROJECT